MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134292781 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000730

The History of Surfactants and Review of Their Allergic and Irritant Properties

2021· review· en· W3134292781 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colby L. Presley, Michelle Militello, Cara Barber, Ryan Ladd, Melissa Laughter, Heather Ferguson, Jesse Dewey, Kayd J Pulsipher, Chandler W. Rundle, Cory A. Dunnick

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenzalkonium chlorideCosmeticsIrritant contact dermatitisPulmonary surfactantDermatologyAllergic contact dermatitisMedicineCosmetologyDiethanolamineContact dermatitisAmidoamineCetrimideAllergyOrganic chemistryChemistryImmunologyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surfactants, many of which are used as detergents, can be found in many common household items, such as shampoos, conditioners, soaps, and cosmetics. One should recognize the multitude of surfactants that are used in today's products to identify any potential allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) or irritant contact dermatitis (ICD). Given their abundance in everyday products, it is understandable that many cases of occupational contact dermatitis that arise can be attributed to surfactants. The products most connected with ACD are cocamidopropyl betaine, oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, decyl glucoside, 3-dimethylaminopropylamine, amidoamine, and cocamide diethanolamine. Similarly, the most common surfactant-related causes of ICD are sodium lauryl sulfate and benzalkonium chloride. It is important for dermatologists to identify the causes and differentiate between the two, to adjust treatments and products accordingly. Here, the most frequently used surfactants, as well as their correlation between ACD and ICD, will be reviewed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207